6 ms·

He was allowed to keep his BlackBerry for personal communication only, not classified communication, and had to use a Sectéra Edge for classified communication.

by _djo_ 1y ago

He was allowed to keep his BlackBerry for personal communication only, not classified communication, and had to use a Sectéra Edge for classified communication. [0] The Blackberry for personal use wasn't a stock BlackBerry, but hardened by the NSA and fitted with the SecurVoice software package to encrypt voice calls, emails, and messages. The few people he had on his approved communication list were given the same devices.[1] That BlackBerry was, again, not used for classified communication. So it's not the same thing as the current scandal. [0] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/jan/24/obamas-other-phone-has-itronix-shell/ https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/jan/24/obamas-other-p... [1] https://www.wired.com/2009/04/obama-to-get-back-blackberry-at-last-toughened-by-nsa/ https://www.wired.com/2009/04/obama-to-get-back-blackberry-a...

timschmidt 1y ago
> He was allowed to keep his BlackBerry for personal communication only, not classified communication Presence of the senior staff on his (very limited) contact list would seem to contradict that statement. Communication with them would be, by definition, not personal. I agree with you that our government officials should be using the secure infrastructure our patriotic service members and civil servants work so hard to build and maintain.
- _djo_ 1y ago
  If you’d prefer, we can call it unclassified communication rather than personal communication. The point is that it was not used for Secret, Top Secret, or other classified communications. For that, he had the SME-PED device. So, again, it’s not a parallel to the current situation. Nobody is saying the SecDef and other staff shouldn’t have unclassified devices as well as their classified devices, the issue is that they’ve been using the unclassified devices to conduct Secret or Top Secret discussions.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - _djo_ 1y ago
      That's not a counter-argument. You're introducing a hypothetical with no substantiating evidence, trying to create a parallel to a situation where we have unambiguous evidence of non-classified devices and software being used to discuss classified material. The onus is on you to prove the claim, not on others to prove a negative. It has been eight years since Obama's presidency, had there been any use of this hardened BlackBerry for classified communications it would have emerged by now. Similarly, all messages on that device were subject to the Presidential Records Act, and are archived by NARA. You can FOIA them if you want to. There were also no claims made during his administration that he ignored security protocols. Even his insistence on retaining a BlackBerry for unclassified communications was done through a compromise and an NSA-hardened device, not by ignoring the rules. Similarly, how do we know that Reagan didn't hold cleartext phone calls with his aides on the Top Secret plans to contain the USSR? We don't, but in the absence of any supportive evidence over the years it's safe to assume he did not.
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        [flagged]
        _djo_ 1y ago
        My statements were complete. You were not completing them, but trying to spin them in a way that implies wrongdoing when no evidence exists of it. I can only presume you're doing so for partisan reasons, to try to defend the actions of the current administration. Whatever the reason, I have made my case. Feel free to make yours with a similar level of evidence.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - rvnx 1y ago
    But how could he have created accidentally a conversation for discussing targets during military attack with a journalist if secret communication was not done on his clear-text device ?
    - _djo_ 1y ago
      I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm referring to Obama's use of an NSA-hardened BlackBerry for unclassified communication with a select group of people, while using a purpose-built and NSA-cleared secure phone for classified communication. All of which was done correctly in terms of information security processes. Secretary of Defence Hegseth sent Secret or Top Secret information over a channel (Signal/TM Signal and a regular mobile phone) that was never cleared for classified communications. The person I was replying to was trying to equate Obama's actions to those of Hegseth (and Waltz and others), I was providing context showing that to be a false equivalence. What Hegseth did was indefensible.
      - rvnx 1y ago
        Thank you for the clarification
- HillRat 1y ago
  Obama wasn't allowed to keep his Blackberry; he requested a secure commercial-quality cellphone to communicate with his aides, and NSA (which was, to be sure, not really happy about the request) selected the Blackberry as their platform. The end solution was a highly pared-down device that could only communicate via a hosted encryption server (a commercial product, SecurVoice) to a small number of paired devices, which were distributed to Obama's inner circle. The Presidential devices had additional security limitations (e.g., they could only connect to WHCA-controlled base stations). End of the day, what they had was an encrypted closed network of devices, some of which communicated over public wireless infra, running a very limited, NSA-reviewed, approved, and altered, software suite. What's clear is that NSA put a fair amount of effort into securing and maintaining that system, so much that its use was limited to the White House; Hillary Clinton wanted a similar setup (her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, had been allowed to use unaltered "off the shelf" Blackberries under an NSA waiver, but NSA had declined to renew those waivers due to security concerns), but NSA slow-walked and effectively derailed the discussions with State's security team, perhaps because they wanted to limit the amount of technical detail discussed outside the White House, or because they were concerned that State would be unable to provide SecState with the kind of technical support necessary to secure the devices during global travel. (We all know what happened next, of course.)

by _djo_ 1y ago

timschmidt 1y ago

> He was allowed to keep his BlackBerry for personal communication only, not classified communication Presence of the senior staff on his (very limited) contact list would seem to contradict that statement. Communication with them would be, by definition, not personal. I agree with you that our government officials should be using the secure infrastructure our patriotic service members and civil servants work so hard to build and maintain.

_djo_ 1y ago
If you’d prefer, we can call it unclassified communication rather than personal communication. The point is that it was not used for Secret, Top Secret, or other classified communications. For that, he had the SME-PED device. So, again, it’s not a parallel to the current situation. Nobody is saying the SecDef and other staff shouldn’t have unclassified devices as well as their classified devices, the issue is that they’ve been using the unclassified devices to conduct Secret or Top Secret discussions.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - _djo_ 1y ago
    That's not a counter-argument. You're introducing a hypothetical with no substantiating evidence, trying to create a parallel to a situation where we have unambiguous evidence of non-classified devices and software being used to discuss classified material. The onus is on you to prove the claim, not on others to prove a negative. It has been eight years since Obama's presidency, had there been any use of this hardened BlackBerry for classified communications it would have emerged by now. Similarly, all messages on that device were subject to the Presidential Records Act, and are archived by NARA. You can FOIA them if you want to. There were also no claims made during his administration that he ignored security protocols. Even his insistence on retaining a BlackBerry for unclassified communications was done through a compromise and an NSA-hardened device, not by ignoring the rules. Similarly, how do we know that Reagan didn't hold cleartext phone calls with his aides on the Top Secret plans to contain the USSR? We don't, but in the absence of any supportive evidence over the years it's safe to assume he did not.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - _djo_ 1y ago
        My statements were complete. You were not completing them, but trying to spin them in a way that implies wrongdoing when no evidence exists of it. I can only presume you're doing so for partisan reasons, to try to defend the actions of the current administration. Whatever the reason, I have made my case. Feel free to make yours with a similar level of evidence.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        [flagged]
- rvnx 1y ago
  But how could he have created accidentally a conversation for discussing targets during military attack with a journalist if secret communication was not done on his clear-text device ?
  - _djo_ 1y ago
    I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm referring to Obama's use of an NSA-hardened BlackBerry for unclassified communication with a select group of people, while using a purpose-built and NSA-cleared secure phone for classified communication. All of which was done correctly in terms of information security processes. Secretary of Defence Hegseth sent Secret or Top Secret information over a channel (Signal/TM Signal and a regular mobile phone) that was never cleared for classified communications. The person I was replying to was trying to equate Obama's actions to those of Hegseth (and Waltz and others), I was providing context showing that to be a false equivalence. What Hegseth did was indefensible.
    - rvnx 1y ago
      Thank you for the clarification
HillRat 1y ago
Obama wasn't allowed to keep his Blackberry; he requested a secure commercial-quality cellphone to communicate with his aides, and NSA (which was, to be sure, not really happy about the request) selected the Blackberry as their platform. The end solution was a highly pared-down device that could only communicate via a hosted encryption server (a commercial product, SecurVoice) to a small number of paired devices, which were distributed to Obama's inner circle. The Presidential devices had additional security limitations (e.g., they could only connect to WHCA-controlled base stations). End of the day, what they had was an encrypted closed network of devices, some of which communicated over public wireless infra, running a very limited, NSA-reviewed, approved, and altered, software suite. What's clear is that NSA put a fair amount of effort into securing and maintaining that system, so much that its use was limited to the White House; Hillary Clinton wanted a similar setup (her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, had been allowed to use unaltered "off the shelf" Blackberries under an NSA waiver, but NSA had declined to renew those waivers due to security concerns), but NSA slow-walked and effectively derailed the discussions with State's security team, perhaps because they wanted to limit the amount of technical detail discussed outside the White House, or because they were concerned that State would be unable to provide SecState with the kind of technical support necessary to secure the devices during global travel. (We all know what happened next, of course.)